John Locke- Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government (1690)

A number of times throughout history, tyranny has stimulated breakthrough thinking about liberty. This was certainly the case in England with the mid-seventeenth-century era of repression, rebellion, and civil war. There was a tremendous outpouring of political pamphlets and tracts. By far the most influential writings emerged from the pen of scholar John Locke.He expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.These views were most fully developed in Locke’s famous Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government, and they were so radical that he never dared sign his name to it. He acknowledged authorship only in his will. Locke’s writings did much to inspire the libertarian ideals of the American Revolution. This, in turn, set an example which inspired people throughout Europe, Latin America, and Asia. “Reason, which is that Law,” Locke declared, “teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” Locke envisoned a rule of law: “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.”Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may

say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”

MAGNA CARTA 1215

King John of England agreed, in 1215, to the demands of his barons and authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. Thus he bound not only himself but his "heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns (kings) within the rule of law.

When Englishmen left their homeland to establish colonies in the New World, they brought with them charters guaranteeing that they and their heirs would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects (colonists claimed the

rights of all Englishmen)." Scant generations later, when these American colonists raised arms against their mother country, they were fighting not for new freedoms but to preserve liberties that dated to the 13th century.

When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English law

Quotes:

“No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS (Text: World History, p. 617)

The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689 after the “Glorious Revolution”

removed King James II from power. The new monarchs, William and Mary, signed it into law.

It lists certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy

(like England) were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to

petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence. (These ideas about rights were birthed

by political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England.) It also sets out

certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as

represented in parliament.

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for all Englishmen. The people, embodied in the

parliament, are granted immutable (can’t be taken away) civil and political rights through the

act, including:

Freedom from royal interference with the law. The king cannot unilaterally (by himself)

establish new courts or act as a judge.

Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became

necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.

Freedom to petition (request a new law) the monarch.

Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace. The agreement of parliament

became necessary before the army could be moved against the populace (citizens) when

not at war.

Freedom for Protestants to have arms (weapons) for their own defence, as suitable to

their class and as allowed by law.

Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign (king).

Mayflower Compact: (Text: The Americans, p. 50)

The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. It was written by the colonists, later together known to history as the Pilgrims, who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower. It was signed on November 11, 1620 by 41 of the ship's one hundred and two passengers, in what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod.

The Mayflower was originally bound for the mouth of the Hudson River, in land granted in a patent from the Crown to the London Virginia Company. The decision was made instead to land farther north, in what is now Massachusetts. This inspired some of the "strangers" (colonists who were not members of the congregation of religious dissenters leading the expedition) to proclaim that since the settlement would not be made in the agreed-upon Virginia territory, they "would use their own liberty; for none had power to command them...." William Bradford, the Pilgrim leader, was alarmed to learn that some of the others felt no obligation to respect the rules of the Pilgrims. The male heads of Pilgrim and non-Pilgrim families therefore drew up a compact that bound all signers to accept whatever form of government was established after landing. The compact created a "Civil Body Politic" to enact "just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices." Every adult male had to sign the agreement before going ashore.

It is the first written framework of government, or constitution, established in what is now the United States, and the earliest example of colonists governing themselves. The compact remained in effect until 1689.

Text:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.[5][3]

NEW ENGLAND TOWN MEETINGS

Early English settlers came to America for religious freedom from the Church of England. The Puritans,

as they were called, set up a society that was free of the ornate, rigid traditions of the Anglo-Catholic

church. However, the Puritans also established a religious order that was equally rigid. In America, there

was religious freedom as long as you were a Puritan!

The central focus of every New England town was the meetinghouse. These structures were typically

financed through taxation, and were usually the largest building in the town. They were used both for

religious worship, and for conducting town business. They were always very simple buildings, with no

statues, decorations, or stained glass. Not even a cross hung on the wall. After all, before they left, the

Puritans broke all of the stained glass in the cathedrals in England.

The origin of the town meeting form of government, still prevalent in New England today, can be traced

to meetinghouses of the colonies. Town meeting is a form of local government practiced in the U.S. region of

New England since colonial times. While the uses and laws vary from state to state, the general form is for

residents of the town to gather once a year and act as a legislative body, voting on operating budgets, laws and

other matters for the community's operation over the following 12 months.

The Puritans, who believed in Congregationalist church governance, established town meetings in New England

when they established the various New England colonies.

Description by author Frank Bryant:

A town meeting is a legislature of citizens, for citizens, and by citizens. The fact that each citizen of the town is

also a legislator separates the New England town meeting from all other forms of democracy. This difference is

huge. Town meeting democracy is not representative democracy. Representation was conceived as a natural

substitute for real democracy—an effective way to insure some popular control over distant governments in

large nations. Town meeting democracy is like the democracy of ancient Athens. In town meetings like the ones

I study in Vermont, citizens come together and make laws face-to-face. Budgets are adjusted, passed, or

defeated. Officers are elected. Town property is bought or sold. Taxes are levied.

HOUSE OF BURGESSES (Texts: The Americans, p. 48)

During the 1610s, the small English colony at Jamestown was essentially a failure. Fearful of

losing their investment, the officers of the Virginia Company in London embarked upon a series

of reforms designed to attract more people to the troubled settlement. They began by ending the

company monopoly on land ownership, believing that the colonists would display greater

initiative if they had an ownership position in the venture. Company officials also made justice

in Virginia more predictable by adopting English common law as the basis of their system,

which replaced the whims of the governor as the final voice on legal matters. In 1620, in an

effort to create a more stable society, the company dispatched a boatload of marriageable

women to the colony; the going rate was 120 pounds of tobacco for each bride.

An additional inducement was provided by the company’s effort to make local government in

Virginia more responsive to the colonists. In July 1619, a meeting of the House of Burgesses

was held in Jamestown, the first such assembly in the Americas. The initial session

accomplished little, however; it was cut short by an outbreak of malaria. The assembly

comprised 22 members who represented the following constituencies:

The governor, who was appointed to his position by the company officials in London

The governor’s council, six prominent citizens selected by the governor

The burgesses (representatives) from various locales, initially the larger plantations and later

in Virginia history from the counties.

Voting for the burgesses was limited to landowning males over 17 years of age.

The House of Burgesses was empowered to enact legislation (make laws) for the colony, but its

actions were subject to veto by the governor, council and ultimately by the directors in London.

Nevertheless, such a legislative body would have been unthinkable in the Spanish or French

colonies of that day, which highlights the degree to which the concept of a limited monarchy

had become accepted by the English people.

TRIAL OF JOHN PETER ZENGER

No democracy has existed in the modern world without the existence of a FREE PRESS. Newspapers and pamphlets allow for the exchange of ideas and for the voicing of dissent. When a corrupt government holds power, the press becomes a critical weapon. It organizes opposition and can help revolutionary ideas spread. The trial of JOHN PETER ZENGER, a New York printer, was an important step toward this most precious freedom for American colonists.

John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant who printed a publication called The NEW YORK WEEKLY JOURNAL. This publication harshly pointed out the actions of the corrupt royal governor, WILLIAM S. COSBY. It accused the government of rigging elections and allowing the French enemy to explore New York harbor. It accused the governor of an assortment of crimes and basically labeled him an idiot. Although Zenger merely printed the articles, he was hauled into jail. The authors were anonymous, and Zenger would not name them.

In 1733, Zenger was accused of LIBEL. In his day it was libel when you published information that was opposed to the government. Truth or falsity were irrelevant. He never denied printing the pieces. The judge therefore felt that the verdict was never in question. Something very surprising happened, however.

The first jury was packed with individuals on Cosby's payroll. Throughout this process, Zenger's wife Anna kept the presses rolling. Her reports resulted in replacing Cosby's jury with a true jury of Zenger's peers.

When the trial began and Zenger's new attorney began his defense, a stir fluttered through the courtroom. The most famous lawyer in the colonies, ANDREW HAMILTON of Philadelphia, stepped up to defend Zenger. Hamilton admitted that Zenger printed the charges and demanded the prosecution to prove them false. In a stirring appeal to the jury, Hamilton pleaded for his new client's release. "It is not the cause of one poor printer," he claimed, "but the cause of liberty." The judge ordered the jury to convict Zenger if they believed he printed the stories. But the jury returned in less than ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty.

Cheers filled the courtroom and soon spread throughout the countryside. Zenger and Hamilton were hailed as heroes. Another building block of liberty was in place. Although true freedom of the press was not known until the passage of the FIRST AMENDMENT, newspaper publishers felt freer to print their honest views. As the American Revolution approached, this freedom would become ever more vital.